Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 45 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >  Last ›
   4401. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4220508)
As such, you preference a party that believes in the "natural rights" of a ####### zygote over the natural rights of a living woman. But *you're* the defender of liberty and freedom, right?

I don't have preference, I simply have slightly less disdain relative to theparty that believes that the president can assassinate any American citizen he chooses, that the right to free speech is whatever the government deems appropriate, and uses hatred as the basis for economic policy. That a vote for the Republican Party is actually the preferred option (first time ever for me in a presidential race) is a sorry reflection on the authoritarian state that the current Democratic Party supports.

   4402. PreservedFish Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4220511)
Believe you have have dominion of yourself is the core of libertarianism. It's like complaining that believing in God is necessary to be a Catholic or complaining that a grilled cheese sandwich isn't made of tuna, mayonnaise, and bread.


What if I am socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and I just think the libertarian platform is the best? And I don't believe in natural rights.
   4403. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4220514)
Belief you have have dominion of yourself is the core of libertarianism.


That's not what he asked.

Fine, then we can conclude, equally, that only 12 people in the United States that are in favor of gigantically progressive tax systems to not be motivated by underlying animus


Most people who support a progressive tax code do so because they understand the marginal utility of a dollar.
   4404. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4220515)
If, in fact, you believe a fetus is a person from conception (I don't), it's irrelevant how the person was conceived - the law would be protecting the person's right to exist. A person born of a loving family is no different substance than a person born of rape.


I agree with you, actually. It is consistent. Of course, it's not consistent with the fact that 30-50% of fertilized embryos fail to implant- resulting in a holocaust that makes the number of abortions done yearly look like nothing. And given that that problem can at least be highly mitigated by only allowing people to have sex for procreation, you'd think that they'd do something to save all those lives. Part of it is probably that they don't actually know the science, but that's a whole other topic. Even absent that, there's plenty else there to pick from in showing problematic attitudes towards women.

There is, but opposition to marriage equality is a bad and wrong position, and it's bad that the establishment Democratic Party supported that position for so long.


Yes, but it at least appeared to me that Kurt was implying that that it shows the same level of animus towards gays and lesbians as the GOPs positions over the time periods discussed. I'd argue that the other positions held by the GOP, as well as the statements made by GOP affiliated groups like the AFA, indicate a whole lot of actual homophobia exists, and is welcomed, in the GOP in a way that it simply isn't in the Democratic party. Not to excuse the Democrats of cowardice, because boy howdy do they deserve a hiding on that account, but they're not comparable.

eta: To clarify, I'm not saying that's what Kurt meant, merely that I misinterpreted his point.
   4405. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4220516)
What if I am socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and I just think the libertarian platform is the best? And I don't believe in natural rights.

Then we would probably agree on a lot of legislation and on a lot of things. You just wouldn't be a libertarian.

   4406. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4220518)
I don't have preference,


You take an action, you have a preference. QED. It can be no other way.

I simply have slightly less disdain relative to theparty that believes that the president can assassinate any American citizen he chooses,


Both parties believe this. If this is your distinguishing element, you're just naive about what the GOP believes.

that the right to free speech is whatever the government deems appropriate,


Again, both parties believe this. One preferences the free speech of legal fictions over the free speech of actual humans, so naturally you throw your weight behind that one. Because you're a crazy person.

and uses hatred as the basis for economic policy.


Seriously? This doesn't even make sense grammatically. I have no idea what your fever dream is talking about here.
   4407. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4220519)
Belief you have have dominion of yourself is the core of libertarianism.


I was unaware you (and libertarians in general) were for much stronger air, water, and ground pollution laws.
   4408. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4220520)
Then we would probably agree on a lot of legislation and on a lot of things. You just wouldn't be a libertarian.


You'd be a LINO apparently.

I'll concede the term "libertarian" which is hopelessly soiled anyway, if it makes Dan feel better. I'm simply a greater defender of human freedom in the actual world than his perfect "libertarian" is.
   4409. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4220521)
I agree with you, actually. It is consistent. Of course, it's not consistent with the fact that 30-50% of fertilized embryos fail to implant- resulting in a holocaust that makes the number of abortions done yearly look like nothing.

No, that's still consistent. If one believes that life begins at conception, a fertilized embryo failing to be implanted would be similar to a terminal medical condition.
   4410. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4220523)
What if I am socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and I just think the libertarian platform is the best? And I don't believe in natural rights.

Seems fine to me.
   4411. PreservedFish Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4220524)
You just wouldn't be a libertarian.

I just looked up the wikipedia article on libertarianism, and there's a discussion of this. According to wikipedia I would be a "consequentialist libertarian."

Note: I am not actually a consequentialist libertarian.
   4412. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4220526)
This one's for Joe "whee, gotcha" Kehoskie:

You call it "gotcha"; I call it pointing out a lack of consistent standards.

At 3:17 PM, Hutcheson complained that the GOP made a political calculation re: immigration:

The GOP in a nutshell. The policy must fit the aims of the party, not the good of the nation.

And then, just 90 minutes later, he gave Obama a free pass for ... making a political calculation about gay marriage:

It is my position that Obama was against same-sex marriage but for civil unions because that was what the polls told him he needed to be.

Now, obviously, self-awareness is to Sam Hutcheson as intelligence is to Snooki, but this kind of garbage can't be left unchallenged day after day.
   4413. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4220529)
I'll concede the term "libertarian" which is hopelessly soiled anyway, if it makes Dan feel better. I'm simply a greater defender of human freedom in the actual world than his perfect "libertarian" is.

You're a great defender of human freedom as Derek Jeter is at defending the area between second and third base.

I was unaware you (and libertarians in general) were for much stronger air, water, and ground pollution laws.

I have no qualms about people suing for actual or even reasonably projected damages. I wouldn't have any issue with carbon taxes, so long as the taxes were consistent and based on actual estimates of direct damage, not intended as a punitive measure, and distributed based on damages.
   4414. JuanGone..except1game Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4220530)
I don't have preference, I simply have slightly less disdain relative to theparty that believes that the president can assassinate any American citizen he chooses, that the right to free speech is whatever the government deems appropriate, and uses hatred as the basis for economic policy.


I'm not going to address the first 2, but "hatred as the basis for economic policy" is just weird. Returning to tax rates that existed 12 years ago is hatred? Additional tax cuts just a couple of years ago is hatred? I'm not sure how you even get from reality to that statement.
   4415. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4220532)
And then, just 90 minutes later, he gave Obama a free pass for ... making a political calculation about gay marriage:


Don't be mean. If we expect Sam to be 100% consistent, then that negates the possibility of him being correct. I'd love to see Sam be inconsistent and support civil rights, even if only by accident.
   4416. Kurt Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4220533)
Yes, but it at least appeared to me that Kurt was implying that that it shows the same level of animus towards gays and lesbians as the GOPs positions over the time periods discussed. I'd argue that the other positions held by the GOP, as well as the statements made by GOP affiliated groups like the AFA, indicate a whole lot of actual homophobia exists, and is welcomed, in the GOP in a way that it simply isn't in the Democratic party.

As I said on the last page, I didn't mean to say or imply anything like that. The Republican party is much more homophobic than the Democratic party.
   4417. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4220534)
I have no qualms about people suing for actual or even reasonably projected damages.


Given the fact that the damage accumulates from an enormously large number of sources, how would you distribute that damage?
   4418. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4220536)
but this kind of garbage can't be left unchallenged day after day.

Like Dan did previously - and who I also challenged - you're taking Sam to equal all liberals on the board, which makes absolutely no sense.
   4419. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4220537)
I'm not going to address the first 2, but "hatred as the basis for economic policy" is just weird. Returning to tax rates that existed 12 years ago is hatred? Additional tax cuts just a couple of years ago is hatred? I'm not sure how you even get from reality to that statement.

If they were actually running on just "we need this because we need more revenue" without throwing in the "you know why you're poor? because those guys over there are robbing you" and "those guys will put you back in chains" and "Romney? He's a murderer and a felon!" then I would agree.
   4420. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4220540)
and uses hatred as the basis for economic policy.


That doesn't make sense from a logical or factual standpoint. Logically, if hatred of the rich and business were really the basis of Democratic financial policy, they wouldn't merely be proposing a return to a 39.5% top marginal rate or still supporting debt based financing. Not unless you really, really define "hatred" down. Factually, the vast majority of the party elite is itself wealthy, and one of it's strongest demographics are those with post-graduate degrees, something that generally correlates with at least an above median income.
   4421. formerly dp Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4220547)
And then, just 90 minutes later, he gave Obama a free pass for ... making a political calculation about gay marriage:


I don't give Obama a free pass for his stance on gay marriage, but there's mitigating evidence to suggest it wasn't motivated by homophobia. Which I thought was Sam's point.

He deserves to be taken to task for his earlier position. But if the Republicans used their convention to announce that, as an official party platform, they'd now be in favor of extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, I wouldn't spend much time arguing about whose prior position was or wasn't motivated by homophobia, and would instead focus on the positives gained by their change of heart. Again, I hold Obama's poll-following on this issue (which I believe motivated both his initial stance and his recent change of heart) against him. He lost my vote a while ago for a lot of reasons, and his unwillingness to be a leader on this issue is among them.
   4422. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4220549)
Figures Szym would invoke Jeter's defense. Jeter has always been at his best when going to his right.
   4423. asdf1234 Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4220551)
Anyone else watching the RNC-sponsored Lawrence Welk reunion right now? "New Mexico is where we teach children to respect God, respect the flag, respect others, and respect themselves."

I was wondering what they were teaching over there.

Edit: Oh, Newt. If you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you.
   4424. Shredder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4220554)
If they were actually running on just "we need this because we need more revenue" without throwing in the "you know why you're poor? because those guys over there are robbing you" and "those guys will put you back in chains" and "Romney? He's a murderer and a felon!" then I would agree.
Yeah! And while Dan's at it, I'll bet no one has ever asked to see his birth certificate!
   4425. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4220555)
That a vote for the Republican Party is actually the preferred option (first time ever for me in a presidential race) is a sorry reflection


on your ability to assess the merits of the two parties EVEN on the issues you deem most important.

theparty that believes that the president can assassinate any American citizen he chooses

Both parties believe this, as long as their guy is in the House, and in fact the GOP seems perfectly content with allowing Obama to do this so long as the target is a skary mooselim- using this to justify R over D is either disingenuous or irrational

that the right to free speech is whatever the government deems appropriate

favoring the GOP on free speech over the Dems, is likewise irrational, I mean jeebus, GOpers in various states are requiring doctors to give misinformation to patients, and you claim that the Ds are now worse, simply because of policy views (fairness doctrine, campaign rules) they have favored all along- claiming that the Ds have changed on these issues (they haven't really) is just false.

and uses hatred as the basis for economic policy.

this one made me do a spittake- the very idea that the Dems use "hatred" (more than the Repubs)- is so unfathomably ludicrous...

I know you want to keep one side from dominating, and keep these thread from turning into back slapping circle jerks, but can't YOU of all people do better than this?


   4426. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4220556)
No, that's still consistent. If one believes that life begins at conception, a fertilized embryo failing to be implanted would be similar to a terminal medical condition.


Which was directly caused by the woman and the man having sex. I think you can make at least manslaughter charges stick for that. It's at least negligent to have sex knowing that a sperm could fertilize an egg and result in a 1/3 or 1/2 chance of death. That's definitely reasonably foreseeable.

"you know why you're poor? because those guys over there are robbing you" and "those guys will put you back in chains" and "Romney? He's a murderer and a felon!"


Wait, if you're going to take the most vociferous attacks, in the harshest light possible, including by those who aren't connected with the actual campaign, then you have to do the same for the other side. In which case Romney's ads can certainly be considered similar to the first two as "they're giving more of your stuff to undeserving poor black people" and "they're robbing you to give a whole bunch of freeloaders health care," and "Obama committed treason by revealing information about the Bin Laden operation."

Plus, Obama isn't the guy running for president who was involved in an auto fatality.*

*Not that Romney was at fault or his involvement in that accident in France was the target of the really egregious Priorities USA ad that you're referencing... Though, that ad aired once, by accident. As horrible as it is, you can't really claim it's a focal point of Obama's campaign.
   4427. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4220557)
To me, these have been the most repellent political position promoted by each Presidential candidate:

Obama trying to sell his "evolution" towards same-sex marriage as some kind of personal achievement. His mother and father's marriage wasn't ruled legal in all states until the future constitutional scholar was six. Too bad he was the wrong messenger for legal inevitability.

Romney's opposition to serious stem cell research. Can't wait to hear Ann tell us about Mitt giving her his full and total loyalty, during her brave battle with MS. There have been a lot of exciting scientific breakthroughs in the field of moral support.
   4428. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4220559)
I don't give Obama a free pass for his stance on gay marriage, but there's mitigating evidence to suggest it wasn't motivated by homophobia.

Is that really mitigating? I don't believe doing something wrong for political gain is inherently more moral than doing something wrong because you erroneously believe it's just.
   4429. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4220563)
Wait, if you're going to take the most vociferous attacks, in the harshest light possible,

Why not? Once a person casually throws around charges of racism, homophobia, and misogyny out there, they pretty much give up any expectation that the opposing side won't portray the former in the harshest light possible.
   4430. formerly dp Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4220566)
Is that really mitigating? I don't believe doing something wrong for political gain is inherently more moral than doing something wrong because you erroneously believe it's just.


I didn't say anything about which was more moral. I said it suggests his initial stance wasn't motivated by homophobia. I'm sure there are Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of political expedience as well. It's harder to tell, because that stance, in order to court right-wing votes, usually comes bundled with a whole bunch of other anti-gay policy preferences.
   4431. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4220567)
I don't believe doing something wrong for political gain is inherently more moral than doing something wrong because you erroneously believe it's just.


Doesn't it depend on the impact of the action/inaction? I mean, in the big scheme of things, Obama's gay marriage stance didn't have much impact on the progress of gay marriage- especially since at the same time as he officially opposed gay marriage he was actively seeking to have the federal government acknowledge it. And as per broader gay rights issues, it's pretty hard to argue that Obama didn't strongly support them and spend political capital and effort to accomplish them.

You'd have a much stronger argument if he had taken action that made gay marriage/rights harder to obtain, and acted like Clinton in passing DADT and DOMA as a capitulation to political pressure.

Also, is there something inherently more moral about dying on your beliefs when you can't actually do anything to advance them as compared to living to fight another day on other, also important, issues?
   4432. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4220571)
Once a person casually throws around charges of racism, homophobia, and misogyny out there,
Is it your opinion that the Republican platform opposing international advocacy for gay rights is not homophobic?

I consider this to be a serious charge rather than a casual one.
   4433. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4220572)
Why not? Once a person casually throws around charges of racism, homophobia, and misogyny out there, they pretty much give up any expectation that the opposing side won't portray the former in the harshest light possible.


Because it makes you a petulant dick, that's why not. Especially considering that all three of those claims are vastly more defensible than the ones you responded with.
   4434. steagles Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4220573)
Is that really mitigating? I don't believe doing something wrong for political gain is inherently more moral than doing something wrong because you erroneously believe it's just.
what if it wasn't for political gain?

just as a comparison, romney/ryan has apparently taken the position that rape is a legitimate manner of conception, and that women who are impregnated by their rapist should be forced to carry their child to term. as a result, that has become a major issue.

whereas, in 2008, by taking the soft position that he did not believe in marriage equality (and it should be noted that he actually did support marriage equality prior to running for the senate in 2004), that became a non-issue.


in both elections, the economy is the main issue, but obama's willingness to set aside social issues actually allowed him to focus on the economy, whereas romney's rigid insistence on being a culture warrior is hanging like a noose around his neck.


   4435. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4220575)
whereas romney's rigid insistence on being a culture warrior is hanging like a noose around his neck.


And if he loses will result in his party seeing policy that they believe is deeply harmful to the economy being passed.
   4436. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4220577)
I'm actually warming up to Gary Johnson, I think his economic policies are misguided, but he seems right (and sincere) on just about everything else.

Obama is not and has never been "the One" of the right's nightmares
Obama is not and has never been "the One" of the left's fever dreams

he is, and was, and likely always will be, a Clintonian style populist, who doesn't really lead but more or less goes with the flow and maybe pushes at the margin- depending upon his political calculation, ironically Mass Romney was much the same sort of political critter.

My guess is that Obama wanted to "triangulate" between left and right- give the appearance of rising above the fray so to speak -
I think when he initially took office and had hefty majorities in both houses that he intended/wanted to let Congress move left, so he could then nudge them a little to the right, giving him the appearance of being in the center, speaking for ALL AMERICA, it was a political calculation/gambit that essentially failed because he failed to anticipate the extraordinary level of GOP intransigence on everything- I don't think the "out" party has ever engaged in such along and sustained campaign of intransigence- essentially in order to get anything done Obama had to abandon his initial strategy of triangulating between the Dem majority and the center- and actually get his hands dirty and "lead"

which he did so only slowly and grudgingly (if you look back on "Obama's" legislative accomplishments in 2008-2010 that was 90% Reid and Pelosi doing the hard work, and Obama standing aside.

Pure politician.
With as much hatred and invective the right had spewed at both Clintons and later Obama, I think if this country ever does elect a true "movement" liberal president again, those same righties will pine for the Clinton/Obama years (the same way many on the left are now showing nostalgia for Reagan).

So any way, I think I'll vote Johnson in 2012.
Besides I live in NY which is not in play.
Longterm, I think the most important thing is that either the Fundy/Teaper grip on the GOP gets broken, or the GOP gets broken- both parties get broken and reformed, we may be stuck with a 2 party system, but the current ideological alignment between the 2 parties is just not working for the country.
   4437. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4220579)
I absolutely, positively do not believe all GOPers are homophobes. Not by a long shot. I personally know GOPers, good people who might struggle with the platform yet ultimately find their moral calculus allowing them to support a party strongly supportive of homophobic positions. Mostly because they personally simply don't interact with any gay population, at all, (to their knowledge) it is a point of indifference to them, mostly. They end up having no opinion when not really challenged on it, and if they are, it's just not something that they feel affects their ultimate goals and positions.
   4438. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4220580)
Is it your opinion that the Republican platform opposing international advocacy for gay rights is not homophobic?

I consider this to be a serious charge rather than a casual one.


Except you're drawing a straight line from "homosexual rights agenda" to a few private citizen extremists, one essentially a neo-Nazi calling for "executing homosexuals." That's a pretty big leap.

Sean Penn said that Venezuelan journalists should be put in jail for calling Chavez a dictator. Sean Penn is a prominent supporter of Democrats, far more prominent than the people involved in Uganda. The Democratic Party opposes Citizen United. Would you think it's fair to draw an arrow from one to another here and say that Democrats support jailing journalists?

   4439. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4220583)
I agree that large swaths of the GOP are homophobic, but was Obama homophobic in 2008? Or three months ago?

I find the evolution of each party's position on gay marriage to be really interesting from a political perspective. In the 90s it seemed that both parties favored the conservative position of letting each State decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Then at some point the Republican Party switched to the religious position that marriage must only be between a man and a woman and began favoring a Constitutional amendment to that effect. More recently, the Democratic Party switched to the liberal position of desiring federal legislation to legalize gay marriage everywhere as a matter of equal rights.

I believe that both decisions to change party policy involved a significant amount of pandering. The Republican Party wanted to cater to the fervently religious part of its base, and the Democratic Party eventually realized that its constituents favoring "marriage equality" cared much more about the issue than those who preferred letting each State decide. I'd guess that the plurality of this country still favors the conservative "States' rights" position, but now neither party holds such a view, probably in large part because their current positions increase voter enthusiasm among some segment of the electorate far more than the plurality position would.
   4440. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4220588)
Because it makes you a petulant dick, that's why not. Especially considering that all three of those claims are vastly more defensible than the ones you responded with.

Only because you personally agree with the positions of the one party over the positions over the other party.

I'm not a Republican. I've voted for Cardin, Mikulski, and Nader. From my point of view, it's the actions of the Democrats, the hatred and enemy-pointing in every discussion of economics, the violation of free speech, one of the most basic human rights, the embracing of an imperial presidency, capable of dealing out death at the stroke of a pen in a manner even the ####### Republicans never reached, that have driven me to vote, for the first time ever, for a Republican for president.

   4441. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4220593)
the embracing of an imperial presidency, capable of dealing out death at the stroke of a pen in a manner even the ####### Republicans never reached,


So a continuation of the Bush Administration policies is the same as reaching a level the Republicans never reached? And I have to admit that I haven't seen much GOP objection to it, other than the fact that Obama is running it.
   4442. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4220597)
the violation of free speech, one of the most basic human rights


Do you mean campaign finance reform here?

Only because you personally agree with the positions of the one party over the positions over the other party.


No, I think Sam's a dick too. And on several of your complaints about the Dems I largely agree and at least on the drone assassination issue I feel that Obama is worse.* But just because the other side is gouting great splenic gushes of bile doesn't mean that you should engage in turnabout. It's just a waste of time, and it makes everyone look like a jerk.

* Though really, he did try to shut down gitmo just to get killed on the issue. Ending indefinite detention doesn't excuse OKing assassination of citizens, but it would have been a measure of progress.
   4443. JuanGone..except1game Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4220598)
I'm not a Republican. I've voted for Cardin, Mikulski, and Nader. From my point of view, it's the actions of the Democrats, the hatred and enemy-pointing in every discussion of economics, the violation of free speech, one of the most basic human rights, the embracing of an imperial presidency, capable of dealing out death at the stroke of a pen in a manner even the ####### Republicans never reached, that have driven me to vote, for the first time ever, for a Republican for president.


The problem is that you keep saying things that reflect a partisan. I mean, "embracing of an imperial presidency". You do realize that some Republicans were arguing just 4 years ago that a President during wartime had no limits. And your upset with the Democrats about this. Your decision is your decision, but its like your arguing for moving to Canada because you hate the American government taking over healthcare.
   4444. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4220600)
he is, and was, and likely always will be, a Clintonian style populist, who doesn't really lead but more or less goes with the flow and maybe pushes at the margin- depending upon his political calculation, ironically Mass Romney was much the same sort of political critter.

My guess is that Obama wanted to "triangulate" between left and right- give the appearance of rising above the fray so to speak -
I think when he initially took office and had hefty majorities in both houses that he intended/wanted to let Congress move left, so he could then nudge them a little to the right, giving him the appearance of being in the center, speaking for ALL AMERICA, it was a political calculation/gambit that essentially failed because he failed to anticipate the extraordinary level of GOP intransigence on everything- I don't think the "out" party has ever engaged in such along and sustained campaign of intransigence- essentially in order to get anything done Obama had to abandon his initial strategy of triangulating between the Dem majority and the center- and actually get his hands dirty and "lead"

which he did so only slowly and grudgingly (if you look back on "Obama's" legislative accomplishments in 2008-2010 that was 90% Reid and Pelosi doing the hard work, and Obama standing aside.

Pure politician.


Exactly (well, other than the fact that Obama never had a hefty majority in the Senate). I find the degree to which so many lefties have been surprised and disillusioned by Obama to be a vivid demonstration of their naivete. And, interestingly, Obama's distinct miscalculation regarding how the GOP would behave was (in retrospect) more than a bit naive as well.

I hope for a second Obama term mostly, of course, for the same reason I voted for him the first time: the alternative is just so breathtakingly worse. But I also want to see it because I have a shred of hope (probably naive, I know, I know) that finally freed from the need to become re-elected, Obama might actually be a bit less risk-averse.
   4445. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4220601)
So a continuation of the Bush Administration policies is the same as reaching a level the Republicans never reached?

No, but expanding those policies to a whole new level certainly is.


   4446. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4220603)
You do realize that some Republicans were arguing just 4 years ago that a President during wartime had no limits.

And I didn't vote for them then. I'm not a Republican.

Obama's topped them. Rather than arguing that a president during wartime had no limits, the Obama administration has done their best to put that argument into action to a degree Bush/Cheney didn't even dream of.
   4447. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4220607)
No, but expanding those policies to a whole new level certainly is.


He hasn't expanded those policies in any real way. And has tried (and succeeded in parts) on pulling it back from where it was.

This isn't a defense of Obama, since his counterterrorism policies are only a bit better than Bush. But you can't claim expansion where there hasn't been any.
   4448. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4220613)
Except you're drawing a straight line from "homosexual rights agenda" to a few private citizen extremists, one essentially a neo-Nazi calling for "executing homosexuals." That's a pretty big leap.
No, I'm saying that the Republican platform opposes gay rights explicitly. The practice of supporting gay rights in Africa has indeed involved advocating against policies of extermination, as well as other less insane but still awful policies. The Republican platform opposes those endeavors, and in broad terms opposes the support for gay rights internationally. That's simply a bigoted position.
   4449. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4220614)
He hasn't expanded those policies in any real way. And has tried (and succeeded in parts) on pulling it back from where it was.

Ignoring expansion of the war in Afghanistan, large expansion of the number, scope, and locations of drone attacks, escalating issues with Pakistan from tense to essentially a private war, to announcing that he can sign the death warrant for an American citizen and his decision amounts to due process, to the expanded war on whistleblowers, then yes, I agree with you.

Greenwald's been cataloging the Obama administration's crimes on a near daily basis. But unfortunately, the Democratic Party's stance on civil rights is they only matter when Republicans are in power.
   4450. CrosbyBird Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4220617)
I'm not a Republican. I've voted for Cardin, Mikulski, and Nader. From my point of view, it's the actions of the Democrats, the hatred and enemy-pointing in every discussion of economics, the violation of free speech, one of the most basic human rights, the embracing of an imperial presidency, capable of dealing out death at the stroke of a pen in a manner even the ####### Republicans never reached, that have driven me to vote, for the first time ever, for a Republican for president.

I agree in large part with everything that leads to your voting decision, but I'm honestly surprised that you think most of these issues will be better under Republican leaders, particularly those issues that involve the use of indiscriminate military force in foreign countries and the accumulation of executive power.
   4451. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4220620)
you think most of these issues will be better under Republican leaders, particularly those issues that involve the use of indiscriminate military force in foreign countries and the accumulation of executive power.

Thinking that is just daft.
   4452. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4220621)
No, I'm saying that the Republican platform opposes gay rights explicitly. The practice of supporting gay rights in Africa has indeed involved advocating against policies of extermination, as well as other less insane but still awful policies. The Republican platform opposes those endeavors, and in broad terms opposes the support for gay rights internationally. That's simply a bigoted position.

"Gay rights" is a gigantically, broad spectrum and you can't say that someone who opposes rights on one side of the spectrum opposes the rights on the other end of the spectrum. For example, many, dare I say the majority of gay rights activits support hate-crime legislation. I'm against those. So am I in favor of homosexuals being executed as well? That's what your argument is.



   4453. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4220624)
I agree in large part with everything that leads to your voting decision, but I'm honestly surprised that you think most of these issues will be better under Republican leaders, particularly those issues that involve the use of indiscriminate military force in foreign countries and the accumulation of executive power.

Yet from what we've seen, the Democrats have actually been worse. The Democrats don't even bother to ask for even a shell of

Thinking that is just daft.

Yes, because he's got a D next to his name. Thanks for proving my point. Since he's a Democrat, whistleblowers get to die in prison and Obama can deal death to American citizens from the skies becuase he has the Magic Pen of Due Process. Well fought, mighty Letter Warrior!

I'm not too upset about being lectured by someone who is apparently in favor of Obama
   4454. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4220625)
"Gay rights" is a gigantically, broad spectrum and you can't say that someone who opposes rights on one side of the spectrum opposes the rights on the other end of the spectrum. For example, many, dare I say the majority of gay rights activits support hate-crime legislation. I'm against those. So am I in favor of homosexuals being executed as well? That's what your argument is.
No, it isn't. The Republican Party platform is the one that is opposing the gigantically broad spectrum of gay rights activism. It is true that within this broad spectrum, they may oppose some things that I oppose or that you oppose, but they also are taking a stand against the advocating for basic human rights for gay Africans.
   4455. Spahn Insane Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4220627)
4452 might be the most disingenuous post I've ever read (all the more so in that I agree with the stated opposition to hate-crime legislation).

EDIT: Or, what 4454 said.
   4456. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4220630)
No, it isn't. The Republican Party platform is the one that is opposing the gigantically broad spectrum of gay rights activism. It is true that within this broad spectrum, they may oppose some things that I oppose or that you oppose, but they also are taking a stand against the advocating for basic human rights for gay Africans.

Bollocks. It's a one sentence phrase that can be read a million ways.
   4457. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4220632)
4452 might be the most disingenuous post I've ever read (all the more so in that I agree with the stated opposition to hate-crime legislation).


MCoA is the one that equates being against gay marriage (which I'm not) as the same thing as advocating for homosexuals to be executed.
   4458. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4220633)
MCoA is the one that equates being against gay marriage (which I'm not) as the same thing as advocating for homosexuals to be executed.
Are you just ####### around again? This isn't what I said at all.

The Republican party platform both opposes gay marriage and opposes advocacy for gay rights internationally. These are not equivalent, and the Republican party platform would be less bigoted if it did not involve the latter.
   4459. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4220635)
Yes, because he's got a D next to his name. Thanks for proving my point.

Um, no.
   4460. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4220637)
wandering over to GOP.com
and looking at the platform

Ideological bias is deeply entrenched within the current university system. Whatever the solution in private institutions may be, in State institutions the trustees have a responsibility to the public to ensure that their enormous investment is not abused for political indoctrination. We call on State officials to ensure that our public colleges and universities be places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left.


We oppose the FDA approval of Mifeprex, formerly known as RU-486, and similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception.


Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.


Making the Internet Family-Friendly (Top)
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting. The Internet must be made safe for children.

First Amendment...
Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage (Top)
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.


Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary (Top)
A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage (Top)
That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle – in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts – makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.


The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)
We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.


The Lacey Act of 1900, designed to protect endangered wildlife in interstate commerce, is now applied worldwide, making it a crime to use, in our domestic industries, any product illegally obtained in the country of origin, whether or not the user had anything to do with its harvesting. This unreasonable extension of the Act not only hurts American businesses and American jobs, but also subordinates our own rule of law to the legal codes of 195 other governments. It must be changed.

I wonder who paid to put that last one in :-)

   4461. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4220642)
that have driven me to vote, for the first time ever, for a Republican for president.


Bullshit
The Dems have not moved one iota left in my lifetime- the Repubs (and I was one) have moved far right

You may have changed, you may have come to a realization

The Repubs may have changed (they have but not in any discernible way towards libertarian goals)

but saying the Dems are now doing something new and different that is driving you from them, well that's simply objectively false.
   4462. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4220643)
he Republican party platform both opposes gay marriage and opposes advocacy for gay rights internationally. These are not equivalent, and the Republican party platform would be less bigoted if it did not involve the latter.

Bullshit. You brought up something so incendiary in the middle of the conversation and now you're going to say that you weren't equating them at all? Bullshit. You made a horribly extreme accusation and now you try and back away from the precipice? I'm sorry I said nice things about you earlier in the thread.

Um, no.

So, what's killing all these people? Why is Pakistan demanding the UN investigate? Is it...magic? Is Dumbledore framing our wise Philosopher-ChessGrandmaster-Poet-King Obama?

I also assume that Bradley Manning just has a fetish for hanging out naked in an empty cell for years. Gotta admit that's a strange one.

You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you.
   4463. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4220644)
Your decision is your decision, but its like your arguing for moving to Canada because you hate the American government taking over healthcare.


I wish I said this...

   4464. formerly dp Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4220647)
Dan's far more entertaining off his meds than he is on them.
   4465. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4220649)
You made a horribly extreme accusation and now you try and back away from the precipice?
I'm not backing away from a thing. The Republican party platform both opposes marriage equality and opposes advocacy for gay rights - human rights - in Africa and elsewhere abroad. In the latter position, they locate themselves in opposition to the American policy of advocating against laws which criminalize being gay. That's simply what the platform says.
   4466. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4220650)
the alternative is just so breathtakingly worse.


That's really the only reason to vote FOR Obama

which is what has me so exasperated with Dan, looking at where the GOP has been sliding in recent years, and then saying that you are the first time ever going to vote GOP- because the Dems drove him to it- for the reasons Dan enumerates- well that's just so completely irrational I'm starting to wonder if we're getting punked.

Look at past thread where he enumerates his beliefs- that person is no Dem or Repub- that person could possibly hold his nose and vote Dem, but is more of a Green or Libertarian (or Even NY's old Conservative Party)- but that person could never vote 2012 Repub.
   4467. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4220651)
Dan's far more entertaining off his meds than he is on them.

Roger that.
   4468. formerly dp Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4220653)
You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you.


Promise?

It must be tough to engage in these conversations now that you can't just make them disappear when they don't go the way you want them to. You really showed us how you feel about "free expression" with that whole episode.
   4469. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4220655)
You made a horribly extreme accusation and now you try and back away from the precipice?


Isn't that good? If someone says something you think is crazy and then you get them to retract it, you've won. That's what you wanted to happen!
   4470. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4220656)
You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you.

Odd.
   4471. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4220659)
I also assume that Bradley Manning just has a fetish for hanging out naked in an empty cell for years. Gotta admit that's a strange one.


and voting Republican because you think that Manning has been mistreated?
Jesus Christ THEY think he;s been treated too leniently for crissakes, are you ####### serious?
   4472. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4220660)
Is Joe sending in reinforcement from the extreme right blogs again?
   4473. formerly dp Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4220667)
Jesus Christ THEY think he;s been treated too leniently for crissakes, are you ####### serious?


Yeah, this I don't get-- I understand being frustrated that there's not a single person publicly criticizing Manning's treatment, but looking to the Republicans to address the issue seems...divorced from the reality of what Republicans have said should be done with him.

I am plenty critical of Obama's policies, and not because I projected any false hopes onto him (did see him speak once, up close and personal, and after that understood the hype around him, but not enough to pull a lever for the man). But the policies I am most critical of will not be changed for the better by a Republican in the White House.
   4474. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4220668)
I understand being frustrated that there's not a single person publicly criticizing Manning's treatment, but looking to the Republicans to address the issue seems...divorced from the reality of what Republicans have said should be done with him.

It seems that way because it is.
   4475. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4220669)
The Dems have not moved one iota left in my lifetime- the Repubs (and I was one) have moved far right

Must be some youngsters here. Bill Clinton and most Congressional Democrats supported both Don't Ask/Don't Tell & the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't believe either provision currently has the support of Obama or most Congressional Democrats.
   4476. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4220675)
Must be some youngsters here. Bill Clinton and most Congressional Democrats supported both Don't Ask/Don't Tell & the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't believe either provision currently has the support of Obama or most Congressional Democrats.

That's an interesting yardstick of the movement of the party, given that on the issue of gay rights the nation at large has moven dramatically over the past 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. To the extent that the Democratic Party has changed its stance, it's only been as a follower, and a laggingly reluctant one at that.

On broader economic/social policy issues, the notion that the Democratic Party of today is to the left of where it was two or three decades ago is laughable.
   4477. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4220676)
The Dems, just like nearly everyone else, has moved to the right over the last two decades since Reagan. It may not be very much (or at least, as much as the Right would like them to move), but they've moved on a number of issues. DADT, the Clinton era welfare reforms, the "modernization" of the financial sector, all those things were at one point or another either compromises brought up by the right, or outright conservative movements. Insofar as moving the country right-wards on the political spectrum, Reagan won.
   4478. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4220678)
Insofar as moving the country right-wards on the political spectrum, Reagan won.

Quite true, as did those who made Reagan possible, such as Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, and, yes, Richard Nixon.
   4479. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4220705)
I'm as gun-suspicious as anyone, but these people are idiots.
   4480. steagles Posted: August 28, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4220730)
I'm as gun-suspicious as anyone, but these people are idiots.
that seems like more of a sexually explicit gesture to my eyes, but yeah, it's bonkers.
   4481. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 28, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4220745)
I'm as gun-suspicious as anyone, but these people are idiots.

Wow, amazing what some folks with a little authority think they can do. Pretty clear ADA violation, too.
   4482. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4220764)
Well, some of the pluralist masses at the RNC shouted down one of their own this afternoon.

And, for Dan, the Republican defenders of free speech are thrilled they have your vote.
   4483. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4220772)
Dan knows free speech when he sees it.
   4484. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4220777)
Dan knows free speech when he sees it.

Downside of expanding ignore list beyond Joey B: Really hard to get some of the jokes.
   4485. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4220788)
Why is Pakistan demanding the UN investigate


Wait. He realizes that Pakistan has a modern air force and competent military and gives the US both tacit permission and actual bases to operate drones from, right? And that Pakistan could easily clear their sky of drones should they actually wish to do so, right? I mean, this is just bonkers. We have those drone strikes going on in Pakistan because Pakistan wants us to! Same thing was true in Yemen before the Arab Spring.

He's just lost it. I hope he's OK in real life and this is just him becoming curmudgeonly and unwilling to examine his opinions.
   4486. steagles Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4220789)
And, for Dan, the Republican defenders of free speech are thrilled they have your vote.

kang: free speech for everyone
crowd: *boos*
kang: hmmm, well then, free speech for noone
crowd: *boos*
kang: hmmm. free speech for some, miniature american flags for others!!!
crowd: *cheers*


and of course:
djs: don't blame me, i voted for kodos!!!
   4487. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4220791)
You blocked Lassus?

Well, if that's the case there isn't much chance you'll be able to read this.
   4488. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4220796)
and of course:
djs: don't blame me, i voted for kodos!!!


I honestly can't remember if I voted for Clinton or Perot in 1996. In Maryland, I might as well have voted for Kodos.
   4489. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4220803)
See, this is why you don't post things like "You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you."
   4490. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4220805)
And, for Dan, the Republican defenders of free speech are thrilled they have your vote.


This linked to the article Republicans call for crackdown on pornography, which I have a question about. I think (but am not sure) current obscenity laws are drawn broadly enough to include fictional depictions in sex. And I can't help noticing that Fifty Shades of Grey just sold a bazillion copies. Can someone with knowledge of the actual laws confirm that the Republican platform would criminalize it? Because that seems like a poor rallying cry.
   4491. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4220806)
You blocked Lassus?

And I'm not blocked?
   4492. tshipman Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4220808)
Fine, then we can conclude, equally, that only 12 people in the United States that are in favor of gigantically progressive tax systems to not be motivated by underlying animus.


What gigantically progressive tax system? The US tax code, when total taxation is considered, is not very progressive.

Casual dishonesty as usual.
   4493. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4220810)
The school that wants that deaf preschooler to stop using his own name is obviously full of idiots. ####### ridiculous.

The article about it contains a moment of equal stupidity--the writer has the kid crossing his index finger and forefinger to sign his name. Not sure what he thinks those terms mean.

I've never really heard of parents teaching their kids S.E.E. rather than A.S.L. No doubt there's as contentious a dispute to be had about that as there is happening on this thread.
   4494. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4220813)
See, this is why you don't post things like "You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you."

OK, I should have said many.

I don't have any trouble getting along with people in any other part of my life but a BTF political thread, even talking about politics (my best friend worked for Kucinich and we talked politics plenty). (Actually, tshipman was already ignored along with Joey B, I forgot about him).

And I'm not blocked?

Since you neither called me a homophobe, suggested I want homosexuals executed, or played Captain Renault for those that did, why would I block you? I'm not affiliated with BTF nor do I work with or for any of those guys, so why bother with the headaches if there's no need? I don't hang out with Fred Phelps or Todd Akin, either.
   4495. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4220814)
You're a great defender of human freedom as Derek Jeter is at defending the area between second and third base.
I'm sorry I said nice things about you earlier in the thread.
You guys can resume your circle-jerk - I'm done with any of you.
Downside of expanding ignore list...

Dan's a bright guy, and these comments are so gratuitous, that I assume there's some deeper point here. If it's some sort of Backlasher-style performance art or a weird attempt at education through irony, it's not succeeding. If his goal is to force Furtado into banning him, then it ultimately will work, but I don't understand why somebody in that position doesn't just walk away.
   4496. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4220817)

Dan's a bright guy, and these comments are so gratuitous, that I assume there's some deeper point here. If it's some sort of Backlasher-style performance art or a weird attempt at education through irony, it's not succeeding. If his goal is to force Furtado into banning him, then it ultimately will work, but I don't understand why somebody in that position doesn't just walk away.


Oh please, that's practically steamed celery compared to the vitriol thrown around in this thread. You could fill a whole book on just insults they've thrown at Joe Kehoskie.
   4497. steagles Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4220820)
fun
Earlier this month, Mitt Romney was welcomed for a campaign event at the Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, by hundreds of coal workers and their families. Now many of the mine's workers are saying they were forced to give up a day-worth of pay to attend the event, and they feared they might be fired if they didn’t, according to local news radio WWVA.

The claims have been mostly denied by Rob Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Murray Energy Company, which owns the mine. He acknowledges that workers weren’t paid that day but says no one was made to attend the event. Well, kind of.

"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend," he told local news radio WWVA, which has received several emails from workers claiming that the company records names of workers that don't attend those types of events.
   4498. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:54 PM (#4220822)
attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend

That word, "mandatory"? I don't think it means what you think it means.
   4499. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4220823)
Since you neither called me a homophobe, suggested I want homosexuals executed, or played Captain Renault for those that did, why would I block you?

I did? I'm really lost. Oh well. I'm perfectly satisfied with how I've treated others here, including Dan.
   4500. steagles Posted: August 29, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4220825)
That word, "mandatory"? I don't think it means what you think it means.
orwell would be quite proud.
Page 45 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(21 - 6:18am, Oct 20)
Last: vivaelpujols

NewsblogHow long of a season does it take before talent beats chance? - Beyond the Box Score
(32 - 5:42am, Oct 20)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(95 - 5:19am, Oct 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(56 - 4:13am, Oct 20)
Last: Sunday silence

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(2 - 3:12am, Oct 20)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(439 - 2:48am, Oct 20)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2527 - 2:06am, Oct 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogJosh Byrnes seen as a leader for job under Dodgers president Friedman - CBSSports.com
(4 - 1:54am, Oct 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogJAVIER prospect comparison system, now with speed! - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 1:34am, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(260 - 1:22am, Oct 20)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(18 - 1:14am, Oct 20)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(9 - 12:43am, Oct 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(33 - 12:41am, Oct 20)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 19)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogJoe West named ALCS crew chief
(44 - 9:55pm, Oct 19)
Last: tfbg9

Page rendered in 0.8596 seconds
52 querie(s) executed